4 ms·

> are typeclasses an object system No, did someone say they were? > Rust enums are pretty standard sum types, a staple of statically typed functional language

> are typeclasses an object system No, did someone say they were? > Rust enums are pretty standard sum types, a staple of statically typed functional languages Indeed I'm not entirely sure what your point is. Functional and OO aren't mutually exclusive.

Annatar 8y ago
"Functional and OO aren't mutually exclusive." They must by definition be. I disagree vehemently with your statement. If you were correct, then there would be absolutely no point to programming "functionally", it would be absurd. Might as well go back to programming in Java or C++, which is utterly counterproductive.
- indeyets 8y ago
  "functional" is a description of algorithm (or program), but not language. Languages usually have ways to program in different styles.
  - Annatar 8y ago
    No, functional programming is a paradigm. An algorithm is a language independent, abstract description of solving a specific task, like for instance searching or sorting.
- Jtsummers 8y ago
  Functional programming and object oriented programming are (largely) orthogonal issues. It is, in fact, quite possible to combine both approaches in a language. Java and C++ are really imperative + OOP, not pure OO. The closest to pure OO are going to be languages like Smalltalk which still has some imperative concepts and some concepts from functional programming (closures and higher order functions via blocks, in particular). Scheme allows for object oriented programming, though not directly in the base language spec. You have to build out some infrastructure for it, but then it's quite effective for it.
masklinn 8y ago
> No, did someone say they were? You're implying that Rust's traits "partially" make for an object system. Given Rust's trait are essentially a restricted form of Haskell's typeclass, these would by your assertion "partially"+ make for an object system as well.
- lucozade 8y ago
  No, I was stating that Rust's trait system offer functionality that supports an OO style of programming. That doesn't really have anything to do with whether one can or cannot call Haskell's typeclasses an object system.

Annatar 8y ago

"Functional and OO aren't mutually exclusive." They must by definition be. I disagree vehemently with your statement. If you were correct, then there would be absolutely no point to programming "functionally", it would be absurd. Might as well go back to programming in Java or C++, which is utterly counterproductive.

indeyets 8y ago
"functional" is a description of algorithm (or program), but not language. Languages usually have ways to program in different styles.
- Annatar 8y ago
  No, functional programming is a paradigm. An algorithm is a language independent, abstract description of solving a specific task, like for instance searching or sorting.
Jtsummers 8y ago
Functional programming and object oriented programming are (largely) orthogonal issues. It is, in fact, quite possible to combine both approaches in a language. Java and C++ are really imperative + OOP, not pure OO. The closest to pure OO are going to be languages like Smalltalk which still has some imperative concepts and some concepts from functional programming (closures and higher order functions via blocks, in particular). Scheme allows for object oriented programming, though not directly in the base language spec. You have to build out some infrastructure for it, but then it's quite effective for it.

masklinn 8y ago

> No, did someone say they were? You're implying that Rust's traits "partially" make for an object system. Given Rust's trait are essentially a restricted form of Haskell's typeclass, these would by your assertion "partially"+ make for an object system as well.

lucozade 8y ago
No, I was stating that Rust's trait system offer functionality that supports an OO style of programming. That doesn't really have anything to do with whether one can or cannot call Haskell's typeclasses an object system.